Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 203 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
203
Dung lượng
863,56 KB
Nội dung
THE
Conquest ofBread
By PETER KROPOTKIN
Author of "Fields, Factories, and Workshops"
"The Memoirs of a Revolutionist," Etc.
NEW YORK
VANGUARD PRESS
MCMXXVI
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE MAN (1842-1921):
Prince Peter Alexeivitch Kropotkin, revolutionary and scientist, was descended from
the old Russian nobility, but decided, at the age of thirty, to throw in his lot with the
social rebels not only of his own country, but ofthe entire world. He became the
intellectual leader of Anarchist-Communism; took part in the labor movement; wrote
many books and pamphlets; established Le Révolté in Geneva and Freedom in
London; contributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica; was twice imprisoned because of
his radical activities; and twice visited America. After the Bolshevist revolution he
returned to Russia, kept himself apart from Soviet activities, and died true to his
ideals.
THE BOOK:
The ConquestofBread is a revolutionary idyl, a beautiful outline sketch of a future
society based on liberty, equality and fraternity. It is, in Kropotkin's own words, "a
study ofthe needs of humanity, and ofthe economic means to satisfy them." Read in
conjunction with the same author's "Fields, Factories and Workshops," it meets all the
difficulties ofthe social inquirer who says: "The Anarchist ideal is alluring, but how
could you work it out?"
[Pg v]
CONTENTS
THE MAN (1842-1921)
THE BOOK
PREFACE
I. OUR RICHES
II. WELL-BEING FOR ALL
III. ANARCHIST COMMUNISM
IV. EXPROPRIATION
V. FOOD
VI. DWELLINGS
VII. CLOTHING
VIII. WAYS AND MEANS
IX. THE NEED FOR LUXURY
X. AGREEABLE WORK
XI. FREE AGREEMENT
XII. OBJECTIONS
XIII. THE COLLECTIVIST WAGES SYSTEM
XIV. CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION
XV. THE DIVISION OF LABOUR
XVI. THE DECENTRALIZATION OF INDUSTRY
XVII. AGRICULTURE
NOTES
[Pg vii]
PREFACE
One ofthe current objections to Communism, and Socialism altogether, is that the
idea is so old, and yet it has never been realized. Schemes of ideal States haunted the
thinkers of Ancient Greece; later on, the early Christians joined in communist groups;
centuries later, large communist brotherhoods came into existence during the Reform
movement. Then, the same ideals were revived during the great English and French
Revolutions; and finally, quite lately, in 1848, a revolution, inspired to a great extent
with Socialist ideals, took place in France. "And yet, you see," we are told, "how far
away is still the realization of your schemes. Don't you think that there is some
fundamental error in your understanding of human nature and its needs?"
At first sight this objection seems very serious. However, the moment we consider
human history more attentively, it loses its strength. We see, first, that hundreds of
millions of men have succeeded in maintaining amongst themselves, in their village
communities, for many hundreds of years, one ofthe main elements of Socialism—the
common ownership ofthe chief instrument of production, the land, and the
apportionment ofthe same according to the labour capacities ofthe different families;
and we learn that if the communal possession ofthe land has been destroyed in
Western Europe, it was not from within, but from without, by the governments which
created a land monopoly in favour ofthe nobility and the middle classes. We learn,
moreover, that the medieval cities succeeded in maintaining in their midst, for several
centuries in succession, a certain socialized organization of production and trade; that
these centuries were[Pg viii] periods of a rapid intellectual, industrial, and artistic
progress; while the decay of these communal institutions came mainly from the
incapacity of men of combining the village with the city, the peasant with the citizen,
so as jointly to oppose the growth ofthe military states, which destroyed the free
cities.
The history of mankind, thus understood, does not offer, then, an argument against
Communism. It appears, on the contrary, as a succession of endeavours to realize
some sort of communist organization, endeavours which were crowned here and there
with a partial success of a certain duration; and all we are authorized to conclude is,
that mankind has not yet found the proper form for combining, on communistic
principles, agriculture with a suddenly developed industry and a rapidly growing
international trade. The latter appears especially as a disturbing element, since it is no
longer individuals only, or cities, that enrich themselves by distant commerce and
export; but whole nations grow rich at the cost of those nations which lag behind in
their industrial development.
These conditions, which began to appear by the end ofthe eighteenth century, took,
however, their full development in the nineteenth century only, after the Napoleonic
wars came to an end. And modern Communism has to take them into account.
It is now known that the French Revolution, apart from its political significance, was
an attempt made by the French people, in 1793 and 1794, in three different directions
more or less akin to Socialism. It was, first, the equalization of fortunes, by means of
an income tax and succession duties, both heavily progressive, as also by a direct
confiscation ofthe land in order to sub-divide it, and by heavy war taxes levied upon
the rich only. The second attempt was a sort of Municipal Communism as regards the
consumption of some objects of first necessity, bought by the municipalities, and sold
by them at cost price. And the third attempt was to introduce a wide national system of
rationally established prices of all[Pg ix]commodities, for which the real cost of
production and moderate trade profits had to be taken into account. The Convention
worked hard at this scheme, and had nearly completed its work, when reaction took
the upper hand.
It was during this remarkable movement, which has never yet been properly studied,
that modern Socialism was born—Fourierism with L'Ange, at Lyons, and
authoritarian Communism with Buonarroti, Babeuf, and their comrades. And it was
immediately after the Great Revolution that the three great theoretical founders of
modern Socialism—Fourier, Saint Simon, and Robert Owen, as well as Godwin (the
No-State Socialism)—came forward; while the secret communist societies, originated
from those of Buonarroti and Babeuf, gave their stamp to militant, authoritarian
Communism for the next fifty years.
To be correct, then, we must say that modern Socialism is not yet a hundred years old,
and that, for the first half of these hundred years, two nations only, which stood at the
head ofthe industrial movement, i.e., Britain and France, took part in its elaboration.
Both—bleeding at that time from the terrible wounds inflicted upon them by fifteen
years of Napoleonic wars, and both enveloped in the great European reaction that had
come from the East.
In fact, it was only after the Revolution of July, 1830, in France, and the Reform
movement of 1830-1832 in this country, had begun to shake off that terrible reaction,
that the discussion of Socialism became possible for a few years before the revolution
of 1848. And it was during those years that the aspirations of Fourier, St. Simon, and
Robert Owen, worked out by their followers, took a definite shape, and the different
schools of Socialism which exist nowadays were defined.
In Britain, Robert Owen and his followers worked out their schemes of communist
villages, agricultural and industrial at the same time; immense co-operative
associations were started for creating with their dividends more communist colonies;
and the Great Consolidated Trades' Union was[Pg x] founded—the forerunner of both
the Labour Parties of our days and the International Working-men's Association.
In France, the Fourierist Considérant issued his remarkable manifesto, which contains,
beautifully developed, all the theoretical considerations upon the growth of
Capitalism, which are now described as "Scientific Socialism." Proudhon worked out
his idea of Anarchism and Mutualism, without State interference. Louis Blanc
published his Organization of Labour, which became later on the programme of
Lassalle. Vidal in France and Lorenz Stein in Germany further developed, in two
remarkable works, published in 1846 and 1847 respectively, the theoretical
conceptions of Considérant; and finally Vidal, and especially Pecqueur, developed in
detail the system of Collectivism, which the former wanted the National Assembly of
1848 to vote in the shape of laws.
However, there is one feature, common to all Socialist schemes of that period, which
must be noted. The three great founders of Socialism who wrote at the dawn ofthe
nineteenth century were so entranced by the wide horizons which it opened before
them, that they looked upon it as a new revelation, and upon themselves as upon the
founders of a new religion. Socialism had to be a religion, and they had to regulate its
march, as the heads of a new church. Besides, writing during the period of reaction
which had followed the French Revolution, and seeing more its failures than its
successes, they did not trust the masses, and they did not appeal to them for bringing
about the changes which they thought necessary. They put their faith, on the contrary,
into some great ruler, some Socialist Napoleon. He would understand the new
revelation; he would be convinced of its desirability by the successful experiments of
their phalansteries, or associations; and he would peacefully accomplish by his own
authority the revolution which would bring well-being and happiness to mankind. A
military genius, Napoleon, had just been ruling Europe. Why should not a social
genius come forward, carry Europe with him and translate the new Gospel into life?
That faith was rooted very deep, and it[Pg xi] stood for a long time in the way of
Socialism; its traces are even seen amongst us, down to the present day.
It was only during the years 1840-48, when the approach ofthe Revolution was felt
everywhere, and the proletarians were beginning to plant the banner of Socialism on
the barricades, that faith in the people began to enter once more the hearts ofthe social
schemers: faith, on the one side, in Republican Democracy, and on the other side
in free association, in the organizing powers ofthe working-men themselves.
But then came the Revolution of February, 1848, the middle-class Republic, and—
with it, shattered hopes. Four months only after the proclamation ofthe Republic, the
June insurrection ofthe Paris proletarians broke out, and it was crushed in blood. The
wholesale shooting ofthe working-men, the mass deportations to New Guinea, and
finally the Napoleonian coup d'êtat followed. The Socialists were prosecuted with
fury, and the weeding out was so terrible and so thorough that for the next twelve or
fifteen years the very traces of Socialism disappeared; its literature vanished so
completely that even names, once so familiar before 1848, were entirely forgotten;
ideas which were then current—the stock ideas ofthe Socialists before 1848—were so
wiped out as to be taken, later on, by our generation, for new discoveries.
However, when a new revival began, about 1866, when Communism and Collectivism
once more came forward, it appeared that the conception as to the means of their
realization had undergone a deep change. The old faith in Political Democracy was
dying out, and the first principles upon which the Paris working-men agreed with the
British trade-unionists and Owenites, when they met in 1862 and 1864, at London,
was that "the emancipation ofthe working-men must be accomplished by the
working-men themselves." Upon another point they also were agreed. It was that the
labour unions themselves would have to get hold ofthe instruments of production, and
organize production themselves. The French idea ofthe Fourierist and Mutualist
"Association" thus[Pg xii] joined hands with Robert Owen's idea of "The Great
Consolidated Trades' Union," which was extended now, so as to become an
International Working-men's Association.
Again this new revival of Socialism lasted but a few years. Soon came the war of
1870-71, the uprising ofthe Paris Commune—and again the free development of
Socialism was rendered impossible in France. But while Germany accepted now from
the hands of its German teachers, Marx and Engels, the Socialism ofthe French
"forty-eighters" that is, the Socialism of Considérant and Louis Blanc, and the
Collectivism of Pecqueur,—France made a further step forward.
In March, 1871, Paris had proclaimed that henceforward it would not wait for the
retardatory portions of France: that it intended to start within its Commune its own
social development.
The movement was too short-lived to give any positive result. It remained
communalist only; it merely asserted the rights ofthe Commune to its full autonomy.
But the working-classes ofthe old International saw at once its historical significance.
They understood that the free commune would be henceforth the medium in which the
ideas of modern Socialism may come to realization. The free agro-industrial
communes, of which so much was spoken in England and France before 1848, need
not be small phalansteries, or small communities of 2000 persons. They must be vast
agglomerations, like Paris, or, still better, small territories. These communes would
federate to constitute nations in some cases, even irrespectively ofthe present national
frontiers (like the Cinque Ports, or the Hansa). At the same time large labour
associations would come into existence for the inter-communal service ofthe
railways, the docks, and so on.
Such were the ideas which began vaguely to circulate after 1871 amongst the thinking
working-men, especially in the Latin countries. In some such organization, the details
of which life itself would settle, the labour circles saw the medium through which
Socialist forms of life could find a much easier realization than through the seizure of
all [Pg xiii]industrial property by the State, and the State organization of agriculture
and industry.
These are the ideas to which I have endeavoured to give a more or less definite
expression in this book.
Looking back now at the years that have passed since this book was written, I can say
in full conscience that its leading ideas must have been correct. State Socialism has
certainly made considerable progress. State railways, State banking, and State trade in
spirits have been introduced here and there. But every step made in this direction,
even though it resulted in the cheapening of a given commodity, was found to be a
new obstacle in the struggle ofthe working-men for their emancipation. So that we
find growing amongst the working-men, especially in Western Europe, the idea that
even the working of such a vast national property as a railway-net could be much
better handled by a Federated Union of railway employés, than by a State
organization.
On the other side, we see that countless attempts have been made all over Europe and
America, the leading idea of which is, on the one side, to get into the hands ofthe
working-men themselves wide branches of production, and, on the other side, to
always widen in the cities the circles ofthe functions which the city performs in the
interest of its inhabitants. Trade-unionism, with a growing tendency towards
organizing the different trades internationally, and of being not only an instrument for
the improvement ofthe conditions of labour, but also of becoming an organization
which might, at a given moment, take into its hands the management of production;
Co-operation, both for production and for distribution, both in industry and
agriculture, and attempts at combining both sorts of co-operation in experimental
colonies; and finally, the immensely varied field ofthe so-called Municipal
Socialism—these are the three directions in which the greatest amount of creative
power has been developed lately.
Of course, none of these may, in any degree, be taken as a substitute for Communism,
or even for Socialism, both of[Pg xiv] which imply the common possession ofthe
instruments of production. But we certainly must look at all these attempts as
upon experiments—like those which Owen, Fourier, and Saint Simon tried in their
colonies—experiments which prepare human thought to conceive some ofthe
practical forms in which a communist society might find its expression. The synthesis
of all these partial experiments will have to be made some day by the constructive
genius of some one ofthe civilized nations. But samples ofthe bricks out of which the
great synthetic building will have to be built, and even samples of some of its rooms,
are being prepared by the immense effort ofthe constructive genius of man.
BRIGHTON.
January, 1913.
[Pg 1]
THE CONQUESTOFBREAD
CHAPTER I
OUR RICHES
[...]... advance, the few can allow the many to work, only on the condition of themselves receiving the lion's share It is because these few prevent the remainder of men from producing the things they need, and force them to produce, not the necessaries of life for all, but whatever offers the greatest profits to the monopolists In this is the substance of all Socialism Take, indeed, a civilized country The forests... characterized them, and which in great crises reaches the sublime, the people will wait patiently "We place these three months of want at the service ofthe Republic," they said in 1848, while "their representatives" and the[ Pg 20]gentlemen ofthe new Government, down to the meanest Jack-in-office received their salary regularly The people suffer With the childlike faith, with the good humour ofthe masses... Thousands of highways and railroads furrow the earth, and pierce the mountains The shriek ofthe engine is heard in the wild gorges ofthe Alps, the Caucasus, and the Himalayas The rivers have been made navigable; the coasts, carefully surveyed, are easy of access; artificial harbours, laboriously dug out and protected against the fury ofthe sea, afford shelter to the ships Deep shafts have been sunk in the. .. from the requirements ofthe industry of a nation and the density ofthe population the mines also belong to the few; and these few restrict the output of coal, or prevent it entirely, if they find more profitable investments for their capital Machinery, too, has become the exclusive property ofthe few, and even when a machine incontestably represents the improvements added to the original rough invention... combined with the labour of others, riches surpassing the dreams ofthe fairy tales ofthe Thousand and One Nights The soil is cleared to a great extent, fit for the reception ofthe best seeds, ready to give a rich return for the skill and labour spent upon it—a return more than sufficient for all the wants of humanity The methods of rational cultivation are known [Pg 2] On the wide prairies of America... socialization of land and the instruments of production A new form of property requires a new form of remuneration A new method of production cannot exist side by side with the old forms of consumption, any more than it can adapt itself to the old forms of political organization The wage system arises out ofthe individual ownership of the land and the instruments of labour It was the necessary condition for the. .. for the right of precedence in the market Wars for the possession of the East, wars for the empire of the sea, wars to impose duties on imports and to dictate conditions to neighbouring states; wars against those "blacks" who revolt! The roar of the cannon never ceases in the world, whole races are massacred, the states of Europe spend a third of their budgets in armaments; and we know how heavily these... plenty of good-will and a keen desire to make victory certain It is a time when acts of supreme devotion are occurring The masses of the people are full ofthe desire of going forward All this is splendid, sublime; but still, it is not a revolution Nay, it is only now that the work ofthe revolutionist begins Doubtless there will be acts of vengeance The Watrins and the Thomases will pay the penalty of their... oppression, which has been the life ofthe human race before it had learned to subdue the forces of Nature It is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few appropriate to-day two-thirds ofthe products of human labour, and then squander them in the most stupid and shameful way It is because, having reduced the masses to a point at which they have not the means of subsistence for... considers theNEEDS ofthe people before schooling them in their DUTIES This cannot be brought about by Acts of Parliament, but only by taking immediate and effective possession of all that is necessary to ensure the well-being of all; this is the only really scientific way of going to work, the only way which can be understood and desired by the mass ofthe people We must take possession, in the name ofthe . into the hands of the
working-men themselves wide branches of production, and, on the other side, to
always widen in the cities the circles of the functions. derive their
sole value from the requirements of the industry of a nation and the density of the
population the mines also belong to the few; and these